This week in Philosophy 355 we began to study theories which reject traditional anthropocentric theories. Historically anthropocentric theories were those theories which valued the morals and experiences of only human beings, and these theories did not include the moral values of non-human animals (Welchman, 2020, UofA eclass).
One reading which we covered was Tom Regan’s “The Case for Animal Rights”. Regan is of course opposed to anthropocentric theories and puts forth his own views and philosophical ideas. His view is based on Kantian deontological ethics. Regan revised Kant’s view and he thought Kant was correct that rationally autonomous beings have a right to respect for their autonomy, but as experiencing subjects of lives we also have a right to respect (Welchman, 2020, 16).
Regan critiques anthropocentric theories; he also provides critiques of non-anthropocentric theories and points out their flaws. This blog post will explore these critiques to non-anthropocentric theories including contractarianism, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism.
The first theory which Regan is opposed to is Contractarianism. This philosophical view is one which is described by Hobbes or Rawls. Whether it is described by one philosopher or the other its fundamental ideas systematically denies that we have direct duties to those human beings who do not have a sense of justice (Welchman, 2020,11). People who can understand a moral contract have their rights covered directly, and they are protected by the contract. The individuals who cannot understand and not sign the contract lack the direct rights. This would include and leave groups such as young children vulnerable. However, here comes the caveat. Children in most circumstances have parents who love and protect them. The children will then be protected by the contract because their parents wish for them to be protected.(Regan, 1983,2-3).
Animals can also not understand, nor can they sign contracts. However, there are animals such as companion animals, and people care about them dearly. The animals that people care about still lack rights but will be protected because people have sentimental interests toward them. For example, if a woman is walking by you with her dog, you should not kick the dog because you would upset the woman. Contractarianism doesn’t care about the dog (Welchman, 2020, Unpublished UofA lectures).
On this matter there are plenty of other animals that people don’t care about. There are farm animals and animals in laboratories who people don’t concern themselves with. These animals still suffer and just because people are not immediately concerned with the suffering, this does not mean the suffering does not matter and therefore Regan is opposed to the view.(Regan, 1983, 2-3).
Another view Regan is opposed to is Virtue ethics because there is no guarantee that a kind act is a right act. This brings up the idea of humane slaughter. There has been a lot of work done by people such as Temple Grandin to make the slaughter of cows easier on the cows. However, just because it is less painful and frightening, does not mean that it is morally right. Regan describes how a little more straw, a little more spaces, and some companionship will not eliminate the basic wrong that is attached to our views of treating animals as resources. Making farm conditions more humane or kind is not enough, according to Regan. Virtue ethicists would be fully in support of making farming conditions more humane, but Regan thinks this is not good enough. The only way to make things better for the animals is the total dissolution of animal agriculture (Regan, 1983,1).
The final theory which will be discussed is utilitarianism.Regan describes how people often think the theory that we seem to be searching for in terms of helping the animals is Utilitarianism.Utilitarians accept two main principles. The first is equality and that everyone’s interests count. The second principle is accepting the act of utility and doing what will bring about the best balance of satisfaction and frustration for everyone who is affected by the outcome (Regan, 1983, 4).
This sounds like it would be a good theory, but the reason Regan opposes it is because individuals have no value with utilitarianism. The following analogy makes this point more comprehensible. A cup contains different liquids. Sometimes the liquids are sweet, bitter, or a combination of both. The sweeter the liquids are the better, and the more bitter the liquids the worse. The cup or container does not have value. In utilitarianism, individuals are the cps. What goes into us matters. Our feelings of satisfaction matter, and our feelings of frustration have a negative value (Regan, 1983, 5)
Another analogy shows further issues with utilitarianism. Regan describes the case of Aunt Bea. She is a cranky rich old lady, and no one loves her. If I was to kill her, I could donate her money to a children’s hospital. This would benefit more people than her staying alive. It should be perfectly acceptable as a utilitarian. Utilitarianism prioritizes what makes the most people feel happy, and it can completely devalue the life of the individuals (Regan, 1983, 5).
Regan provides sound critiques of these theories, and his own view seems to be the best to protect the animals. If I was choose to a philosopher to advocate on behalf of the animals I would choose Regan. I think the above theories especially contractarianism and utilitarianism have deeply rooted flaws and they would need to undergo significant revisal to adequately advocate for the rights of animals. Regan’s views seem to be the most in line with ethical vegan views. His views advocate for the complete abolition of forms of animal cruelty, and this is why I favour it in comparison to the other non-antropocentric theories. . Which philosophical theory do you think is best for the animals?
~Shantel
Hi Shantel, I agree with your perspective on utilitarianism. In particular, I agree with your statement that utilitarianism has deeply rooted flaws and would need to undergo significant revision for it to adequately advocate for the rights of animals. Frankly speaking, if utilitarianism prioritizes what makes the most people feel happy, then animal rights will never progress, because many of the companies that are involved in the industrial production of animals are happy when the output such as eggs and meat increases, regardless of the cost to the animals. In addition, many of us are heavily reliant on animals for protein, and many of us can say we enjoy a piece of steak, lobster or some chicken. But it certainly does not mean that the only thing that matters is the satisfaction the majority obtain from consuming or producing meat. I wonder if it ever would be possible for utilitarianism to be revised so as to accommodate animals, whose interests are constantly in conflict with those of the majority of people. It is safe to conclude that utilitarianism is not a favourable philosophical theory for animals, and it is unlikely that it will ever be-due to the high demand for meat by humans.
While its true a lot of people like eating meat, those moments of enjoyment are relatively fleeting. By comparison, animals responsible for human beings having those experiences will often have suffered for periods that out weigh the fleeting moments of enjoyment those people get. So on that basis Utilitarians have grounds to condemn such practices as Singer does. While his arguments haven’t had the influence he would have liked, its worth noting that consumption of meat is going down in many parts of the world, including North America. Concern for animal welfare is certainly one reason.